United Poker Forum  

Server Time: 8/29/2008 12:15:39 PM PACIFIC  
Player Characteristics - Some distinctions, Wren, 25. Jun 2003 17:22
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Some recent threads have made me realize that confusion exists with respect to player prototypes, and the associated characteristics that go along with these prototypes. Just thought I'd try to clear things up with this post.

A player's style is often characterized by where they fall on different characteristic spectrums. The two most common spectrums used to describe a player's style are looseness and aggression.

Looseness determines how many starting cards a player is willing to play. Using hold'em as an example, players who are extremely loose will play, literally, any two cards to start. At the other end of the spectrum, extremely tight players will ONLY play very big pocket pairs, and perhaps AK/AQ. We all know that, as a general rule, tight (but not uber-tight) play is important for winning at poker.

Aggression determines how frequently a player bets, raises and/or checkraises as opposed to checking and calling. Extremely aggressive players will pretty much always bet or raise, when given the opportunity. Extremely passive players will bet very infrequently, and almost never raise. As most of us know, the winning poker player uses "selective aggression" - in other words, bets, raises and checkraises whenever appropriate to isolate limpers, make players pay to draw, get more money in the pot, etc. However, aggression is not always called for, in the case of trapping, calling immediately after a bet when you're on a draw, etc.

Aside from these two spectrums, which are the most commonly discussed and understood, there are two other spectrums that are useful to rank players against. These are the tricky/straightforward and weak/tight spectrums.

Tricky/straightforward spectrum: Extremely straightforward players are very easy to put on a hand. They generally bet/raise good hands, check/call when on a draw and check/fold with a bust. They virtually never bluff, or slowplay monster hands. Tricky players, on the other hand, are very difficult to put on a hand. They mix it up - for eg, sometimes, they'll raise good hands on the flop, other times they'll wait until the turn. They're not afraid to make elaborate bluffs.

Strong/weak spectrum: The stronger the player, the more difficult it is to bet/raise him/her out of a hand. Very weak players can be easily bluffed out. They always fear the worst, and often fold to cards that are remotely scary. On the other hand, very strong players cannot be bluffed out. They will dilligently stay in with hands such as top pair, good kicker even when the board gets scary.

Using these four spectrums, it is possible to classify poker players against a number of different prototypes. A few of these are:

calling station - loose/passive/straightforward/strong - calling stations are in there until the end. They're happy to play preflop with crappy cards and will stay to the end with any pair or draw. However, they only bet/raise with very good hands, so this makes them very straightforward to play against - bet for value, and don't try to bluff them.

maniac - very loose/very aggressive/tricky?/strong - like calling stations, maniacs are in there til the end, however they're in there betting and raising instead of check/calling. We all know that attempting to bluff a maniac is futile, and that isolate-raising him preflop is often a good play. However, it's not always clear-cut where to place a maniac on the tricky/straightforward spectrum. It is difficult to put him/her on a hand, which implies trickiness. However, if he can be virtually ALWAYS counted on to bet or raise, he almost becomes straightforward again.

rock - tight/passive/straightforward/weak - rocks play very few starting cards, rarely bet/raise even their good hands, and can be easily bluffed out of pots.

ABC/"dedicated newbie" player - tight/aggressive/straightforward/middle - "ABC" players do many things right - they play good starting cards, raising th best ones. They are aggressive when they hit the flop, and are usually willing to throw away longshot draws. However, these players are either uncreative by nature, or are too new at the game to mix things up effectively. Due to this, they tend to do things "by the book", which makes them pretty straightforward (furthermore, they tend to have a lot of tells, which more solid players can exploit).

"Solid" players - GENERALLY tight/aggressive/middle/middle - and this is fluid. Fluidity is the key to being a longterm winning player. Adjusting one's play to the game at hand. For example, at an extremely loose low-limit game, it is proper to play weak and straightforward (in other words, like an ABC player). At a rockish mid-limit table, it is more correct to play stronger and trickier.

IMO, the main reason that solid players make money from less-than-solid players is that the LTSPs are NOT fluid - their play is prototypical and static. Many of these players can be placed on the aforementioned four spectrums quite accurately, and therefore become quite easy to play against.

As a closing note, I think it would be a good idea to use these spectrums to describe relevant players at the table on future "did I play this correctly?" type posts. This would alleviate some confusion over whether we're dealing with solid players or rocks, just to pick a completely random (hee) example :)
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Player Characteristics - Some distinctions, stdioh, 26. Jun 2003 07:42
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
Great post.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Player Characteristics - Some distinctions, SKinner, 26. Jun 2003 10:38
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 26. Jun 2003 07:42 stdioh wrote:
> Great post.

hehehe - you're supposed to say that.

However, I am under no such obligation. That being said:
Great post.
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Player Characteristics - Some distinctions, gary ford, 26. Jun 2003 11:45
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
on 25. Jun 2003 17:22 Wren wrote:
> Some recent threads have made me realize that confusion exists with respect to
> player prototypes, and the associated characteristics that go along with these
> prototypes. Just thought I'd try to clear things up with this post.
>
> A player's style is often characterized by where they fall on different
> characteristic spectrums. The two most common spectrums used to describe a
> player's style are looseness and aggression.
>
> Looseness determines how many starting cards a player is willing to play. Using
> hold'em as an example, players who are extremely loose will play, literally, any
> two cards to start. At the other end of the spectrum, extremely tight players
> will ONLY play very big pocket pairs, and perhaps AK/AQ. We all know that, as a
> general rule, tight (but not uber-tight) play is important for winning at
> poker.
>
> Aggression determines how frequently a player bets, raises and/or checkraises
> as opposed to checking and calling. Extremely aggressive players will pretty
> much always bet or raise, when given the opportunity. Extremely passive players
> will bet very infrequently, and almost never raise. As most of us know, the
> winning poker player uses "selective aggression" - in other words, bets, raises
> and checkraises whenever appropriate to isolate limpers, make players pay to
> draw, get more money in the pot, etc. However, aggression is not always called
> for, in the case of trapping, calling immediately after a bet when you're on a
> draw, etc.
>
> Aside from these two spectrums, which are the most commonly discussed and
> understood, there are two other spectrums that are useful to rank players
> against. These are the tricky/straightforward and weak/tight spectrums.
>
> Tricky/straightforward spectrum: Extremely straightforward players are very
> easy to put on a hand. They generally bet/raise good hands, check/call when on a
> draw and check/fold with a bust. They virtually never bluff, or slowplay monster
> hands. Tricky players, on the other hand, are very difficult to put on a hand.
> They mix it up - for eg, sometimes, they'll raise good hands on the flop, other
> times they'll wait until the turn. They're not afraid to make elaborate
> bluffs.
>
> Strong/weak spectrum: The stronger the player, the more difficult it is to
> bet/raise him/her out of a hand. Very weak players can be easily bluffed out.
> They always fear the worst, and often fold to cards that are remotely scary. On
> the other hand, very strong players cannot be bluffed out. They will dilligently
> stay in with hands such as top pair, good kicker even when the board gets scary.
>
>
> Using these four spectrums, it is possible to classify poker players against a
> number of different prototypes. A few of these are:
>
> calling station - loose/passive/straightforward/strong - calling stations are
> in there until the end. They're happy to play preflop with crappy cards and will
> stay to the end with any pair or draw. However, they only bet/raise with very
> good hands, so this makes them very straightforward to play against - bet for
> value, and don't try to bluff them.
>
> maniac - very loose/very aggressive/tricky?/strong - like calling stations,
> maniacs are in there til the end, however they're in there betting and raising
> instead of check/calling. We all know that attempting to bluff a maniac is
> futile, and that isolate-raising him preflop is often a good play. However, it's
> not always clear-cut where to place a maniac on the tricky/straightforward
> spectrum. It is difficult to put him/her on a hand, which implies trickiness.
> However, if he can be virtually ALWAYS counted on to bet or raise, he almost
> becomes straightforward again.
>
> rock - tight/passive/straightforward/weak - rocks play very few starting cards,
> rarely bet/raise even their good hands, and can be easily bluffed out of pots.
>
>
> ABC/"dedicated newbie" player - tight/aggressive/straightforward/middle - "ABC"
> players do many things right - they play good starting cards, raising th best
> ones. They are aggressive when they hit the flop, and are usually willing to
> throw away longshot draws. However, these players are either uncreative by
> nature, or are too new at the game to mix things up effectively. Due to this,
> they tend to do things "by the book", which makes them pretty straightforward
> (furthermore, they tend to have a lot of tells, which more solid players can
> exploit).
>
> "Solid" players - GENERALLY tight/aggressive/middle/middle - and this is fluid.
> Fluidity is the key to being a longterm winning player. Adjusting one's play to
> the game at hand. For example, at an extremely loose low-limit game, it is
> proper to play weak and straightforward (in other words, like an ABC player). At
> a rockish mid-limit table, it is more correct to play stronger and trickier.
>
> IMO, the main reason that solid players make money from less-than-solid players
> is that the LTSPs are NOT fluid - their play is prototypical and static. Many of
> these players can be placed on the aforementioned four spectrums quite
> accurately, and therefore become quite easy to play against.
>
> As a closing note, I think it would be a good idea to use these spectrums to
> describe relevant players at the table on future "did I play this correctly?"
> type posts. This would alleviate some confusion over whether we're dealing with
> solid players or rocks, just to pick a completely random (hee) example :)

page 33 of Hellmuths new book shows a picture of his "animal types"
they are: the mouse, the lion, the jackal, the elephant---and that rarity- the eagle. They very much correspond to your types. Your explanation is even clearer than his, you should start on your book for entry-level players, theres going to be millions of them.

Gary
        Return to Thread List
 
 
Re: Player Characteristics - Some distinctions, stdioh, 26. Jun 2003 14:34
    View ( Message | Thread )       Return to Thread List
> page 33 of Hellmuths new book shows a picture of his "animal types"
> they are: the mouse, the lion, the jackal, the elephant---and that rarity- the
> eagle. They very much correspond to your types. Your explanation is even clearer than
> his, you should start on your book for entry-level players, theres going to be
> millions of them.

I wish she would. Then I wouldn't have to work :)
        Return to Thread List
 
 
       POKER FORUM HOME   |   POKER FORUM   |   LINK TO US   |   ARCHIVE   |   ONLINE POKER Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum  
Getting Started |  UPF Tournaments |  Poker News, Views, Rules |  Poker Strategy & Psychology |  Money and Bankroll
Poker Bonuses & Promotions |  World Series of Poker (WSOP) |  Play Online Poker |  Poker Odds & Statistics |  Tournament Poker |  Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools
Looking for a Poker Game |  Poker Bad Beats |  Not Quite Poker |  Quizzes and Polls |  Forum Suggestions & Bugs

Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network